User talk:Ltwin/Archive 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Ichthus.svg Hello Ltwin/Archive 2008! Welcome to Wikiproject Christianity! Thank you for joining. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - Secisek (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Ichthus.svg
Christian cross.svg Getting Started
Christian cross.svg Useful Links
Christian cross.svg Miscellaneous
Christian cross.svg Work Groups
Christian cross.svg Projects
Christian cross.svg Similar WikiProjects

--Secisek (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Iowa Band

Delighted to see a Pentecostal commenting in Talk:Iowa Alliance for Reformation. What do you think of my proposal? If nothing has happened within a couple of weeks, I shall probably do it myself. But whereas I could only prune the article savagely, you may be able to add extra information. If you are more interested in the current Alliance, fine, you are probably a good person to be able to assess their notability. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Well I think you put too much faith in me. Sure I agree that the current article is really screwed and maybe your plan would be best at least until we can accurately judge the two groups. I could probably help out with removing the unwikipedia-like references and material, but I really don't know anything about this group (maybe it's because im not from Iowa lol). But what I do get from this article is that this is a group of people with very loose connections with the Iowa band, might not be any at all. Also I think I read somewhere that there are only 5 of them? I don't think that just 5 men could have too much influence. But anyway if you think it would be a good idea to go ahead and edit the current page too make it sound more npov i'd be willing to do it.Ltwin (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No disrespect intended, but I had no particular faith in you. However I did have hope. Seems my hope was too optimistic, so all that abideth is charity! Whilst we must be charitable to these five men (and you are probably right there), the Wikipedia criterion is notabilty. Be bold (another Wikipedia motto!) go ahead, edit the page - it can always be reverted if necessary. I fear that if you do the job properly and cut out all the POV and the irrelevant stuff about the Iowa Band, the article will crumble to dust in your hands and you will be left with … the name of the Alliance and nothing else. Try it! I have also posted a request here so hopefully something will come of it. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Greater Grace World Outreach

Thank you for your involvement with editing this page and your interest in having a consensus reached in this article so the block can be lifted and the article to be brought to some sort of consensus. I was brought in by a request on the Christianity Project page to have someone review the article. I have absolutely no former knowledge of GGWO, nor any particular bias. All I can tell you it in its current state, it looks like an absolute disaster (both the article, and the organization as a whole). My hopes is to help bring the interested editors to the table on the talk page to resolve the conflicts and have the page properly created/edited. Please take a moment to go over to the talk page and review my most recent postings. Also do no be alarmed as your earlier comments/posts were refactored and archived (there is a link available on the page to the archive). My post is only one of several which will hopefully help guide this page towards something everybody can agree is appropriate. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

Christianity WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008

This Newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lakeland revival

I see you've put the page under construction. You go! All the independent reliable sources I found in prior versions or by link following and logged at Talk:Lakeland revival#Reliable Sources are already listed there in citation templates, should you wish to use them. GRBerry 23:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:United House of Prayer for All People

Apologies for that, with only a quick look, that previous edit seemed somewhat POV, which I did not realize until now. Sorry, and thanks for the note!  Marlith (Talk)  04:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


Responding to an old message about the International Pentecostal Holiness Church: I guess I haven't logged on in awhile, and just noticed your message. I quickly took a look at the page and its seems that you have done a good job improving it. I will try to take a closer look when I have time. - Rlvaughn (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Heading levels

It's a bit late, but regarding [1] and [2] (amongst others): There should be no reason to use level 1 headings (=Blah=), and articles should at most have level 2 headings (==Blah==). Level 1 headings match the style of the title of the page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


Why was the Protestant Church cat removed from the Church of the Nazarene page? thanks. Moonraker0022 (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

oh ya, that makes sense but it seems a little litteral to me. There needs to be a cat for churches (denominations) within the Protestant umbrella. Moonraker0022 (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying-up the Nazarene Missionaries article. It looks much better now.Far Canal (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember to keep your cool...

Even when an editor is behaving in a manner you believe to be tenditious or offensive, it's always best to take the moral high road and err on the side of being nice. Even, for example, when a material falsehood is put forth. It's better to be right and scrupulously polite. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Antiochis of Commagene

Hi there. Thanks for your interest on the above named article. The reason I created the article name Antiochis of Commagene, is it distinguish her from the other princesses of this name. There are another two princesses of this name from the Seleucid Empire. The information in this article is correct, that includes the facts on her tomb, she shares with her daughter and mother. I am happy the way I am written this article. If you can find anymore information on her, I am more than happy for you to update this article. You can check out the sources on this article that I have provided for the article, so you can read yourself.

Anriz 22 October 2008

RE: Charismatic Church of God

The think the article should be deleted. In hindsight, the church doesn't seem to be notable in New Mexico at all. Ottre 03:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Lakeland Revival

I don't think it is obvious to everyone why there was a problem with Bentley's behaviour, and so it would be good to explain. Help me say it well, if you can. Hyper3 (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks- that sounds good. Hyper3 (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Its a post-Christian world - I just think that think some of these things need spelling out. Hyper3 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pentecostalism in Canada

Thanks for responding - you can always report the official numbers and then say that you don't know how many other members there are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talkcontribs) 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian Pentecostal Church

Hello seeing your vast knowledge in Pentacostalism, I would greatly appreciate your input here [[3]] . I have just created this article and I was hoping if you would take the time in incoorporating some information from Pentacostalism into this article since this church's doctrine and creed stems off of it in its entirety. I would greatly appreciate your input and some help in expanding the pentcostal beliefs into this article to make more informative, thank you Ninevite (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecolstalism

Thanks for your followup. Oneness Pentecost is very very simple difference from Trinitarian Pentecostal. There is a lot of debate about the right method of describing it but aiming at a page as concise as the Trinitarian page would be a laudable goal. In fact the Trinitarian page would be a great place to start, copy into a topic called New_Oneness_Page fix it to be OP, archive the Oneness Pentecostal page.

There are two definitively different subjects that people have tried to group together. Jesus Name Baptism and Oneness Pentecostalism. I believe that this is the result that most people baptized in the name of jesus are OP. Jesus Name baptism is simply people who believe they should be baptized directly in the name of Jesus instead of the Titles. There are many other groups and people that execute Baptism in Jesus Name other than OP people.

As the Trinitarian page states there is no direct reference to 3 persons in the bible. OP people simply believe that the Trinity is 3 manefestations of same god. They also believe there have been many other manefestations of the same god through time, for example the burning bush, and as God who walked with Adam in the Garden of eden etc.

On the Trinitarian page it says OP are Modalists, and then it goes onto to say that OP believe in "One Personage" which is simply a bad way to describe it. OP don't believe in the personage of god at all. God has a personality, but God is not a person, or three persons god is YHWH (I am that I am).

OP believe that God is One, and there are manefestations of God, but there are not "Persons of God" For example traditional Modalists would suffer to explain,

There is One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

OP totally believe and teach this. That Jesus is Lord he is the One God, who as it says in 1 Tim 3:16

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

So OP draw from this conclusion that when God was Manifest in the flesh, that he progressed his relationship with Man from being a 3rd Party relationship of man-to-YHWH (I am that I am) to a first party (brotherly John 1:12) relationship of man-to-YHSWH. He became our Personal Saviour who died for our sins, as opposed to us offering a sacrifice of lambs and bullocks.

So when we refer to YHSWH or the Greek the Greek Ieasus (very few OP ever speak YHSHW or Ieasus except as the historical reference) or the English Name (Jesus) OP believe they are referring to the proper name of the One God that we should speak to him with.

OP would also use titles, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the hundreds of other titles found in the Old and New testament to refer to God. They would consider Hosanna, and Father equally valid Titles of God, whose proper name is YHSWH -> Ieasus -> Jesus.

You often would here a OP pray, "Heavenly Father..." and all the OP in the room would know he means Jesus as the manefestation of our Father and in that Fatherly relationship, and OP would not think there was a different person other than God.

I hope that all helps set the tone of OP beliefs.

DevonSprings (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am more than willing to improve the Neutral quality of the document as much as I can.

So you asked the question that gets down to the major factoring of trying to limit God to personage?

If Jesus was God, and the "Fullness of the Godhead dwelt within him fully, why did he pray to the father?"

How did Jesus talk to his Father. Was Jesus Talking to himself?

This is very very simple. Jesus was both Man and God. The father dwelt within him. The nature of God, the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit is not the nature of Man!

From John 14

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, 
    Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? 
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you 
       I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 

Jesus the Man had the "father dwelling within him", in Jesus case it was "the fullness of the Godhead".

God is a Spirit, to communicate to God, you must believe that his and submit to that Spirit and pray to God. God is not flesh, when God was manefest in flesh, the fleshly man was praying to the Spirit of God.


DevonSprings (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The nature of God versus the nature of Man. I too have long stopped arguing OP versus TP. And I agree we should definitly discuss the sameness of it all as opposed to the differences. I hope you take time to help me be clear in the OP Pov. The page when I read it was so confusing.

I think what I will do is spend a week or so and fix the 3 introduction paragraphs, then I will describe the Doctrine, then the History. All of the Doctrine today is described in "as opposed to Trinitarian doctrine" which should be one very small section, stating some of the differences and maybe the samenesses in the chart.

At the end of the day, OP describes the Persons as Manifestations, just like wording in 1Tim 3:16. Its just that simple.

There is almost no difference other then OP people don't have to spend multi-paragraphs describing how 3 is one. One is One, it just happens to be God so God can manefest himself however he chooses.

I appreciate your help and encouragment, may we pray each day that the work can be accurate, respectful and representive of what a OP person would say themselves.

The PAW was never part of the Assemblies of God and therefore never came out from them. The PAW is much older than the AG. The PAW was racially integrated in the beginning as was the Azusa Street Mission (Apostolic Faith Mission). Those within the AG that recieved the Oneness revelation were basically excommunicated by the AG. My grandfather was part of the Azusa Street revival. He knew SR Hanby and GT Haywood and others. He was part of the PAW in the very beginning. History has tried to cover the fact that the white brethren left the PAW soley over racial division. My grandfather, who was white, kept fellowship with both the PAW and the PAJC(later to merge with PCI as the United Pentecostal Church International). My grandfather founded the very first Pentecostal Church (Oneness OR Trinitarian) in the whole Tri-State. I have documents, letters, ect. that shows that much of Pentecostal history has been twisted to political correctness. Alas, who am I to change anything. But I am concerned about some historical aspects of Pentecostal history that is readily available but lightly being glossed over. One of these being that the PAW was never part of any other organization and that UPC was never the mainline Oneness group until the white brethren left PAW over racial predjudice.Connor1551 (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean when you say "is this page necessary." I assume you are referring to the OP article proper. There is another article titled Oneness Pentecostalism Doctrine. Perhaps the OP article could go a little lighter on the doctrine (and refer readers to the OP Doctrine page) and go more in depth in the history of the movement. BTW, do you think a separate article on OP Church succession would be an acceptable article? Thanks Connor1551 (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is not about the Oneness Pentecostalism or Doctrine articles. Its about the Oneness vs Trinity article. Just asking if there really is a need for such an article? About OP successionism, Im not sure. Of course, this is Wikipedia and you can make an article if you want. Is there really alot of material on this subject? If not it might be better for it to be addressed in either the main article or in a section of the Oneness doctrine article. However, I know that alot of Baptist share similar views. That there were always Baptist in unbroken succession from the time of the apostles; however, I don't recall a separate article on it. However there is an article on the Great Apostasy. Before you make an article it might be better to discuss first on the Oneness talkpage just to see what other people think. Ltwin (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I had no idea there was such as article as Oneness vs. Trinity. I found it interesting but it doesn't seem to be an encyclopedic subject. Perhaps someone should merge it with the OP Doctrine article. As for the Church succession article, I was wondering if it might be something someone else would consider writing (it's called passing the buck ;) There are quite a few Church successionists in OP, although they may not call themselves by that particular name. Dr. Marvin Arnold founded an OP Church organization that is basically made up of Church successionists. Dr. Curtis D. Ward worked for some time with Dr. Arnold. Dr. Ward differed with Dr. Arnold on the nature of Church succession and proposed a very strict linear succession. He wrote a book on OP Church succession. Dr. Ward also wrote a book that teaches Church succession for Churches practicing glossolalia (which does not go into OP doctrine as the first book does). Chalfant has been quoted as a Church successionist also. Previously in the OP article every Tom, Dick, and Harry was listed in that section as successionists and none of them really were except for Arnold, Ward, and Chalfant. The article is much better but still leans a bit heavy on the doctrinal end as opposed to the historical end. It takes time. Keep up the great work! Connor1551 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose that ONLY secular mainstream authors publishing through secular mainstream publishing companies be cited in the articles. Agciorg (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If acceptable I would like to work closely with you and DevonSprings on the OP article. There is a certain individual attempting to sabatage the article for personal reasons. I intend on completely going over the article and then share any need changes with you. Thank you. Connor1551 (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)